侵權行為法規範模式比較研究

侵權行為法的主要任務在於平衡行為自由和權益保護的衝突，而在私法領域，賦予某種利益以優越地位，則意味著另一種利益的退讓；所以，各國侵權行為法選擇不同的規範模式，必然折射出不同的經濟、政治、文化等底蘊。英美侵權法基於令狀制度的法律淵源、判例法的歷史傳統等因素的考慮，選擇了列舉式的規範模式。列舉式規範模式的優點在於侵權行為的類型具休、明確，便於司法操作；但由於缺少侵權行為法的一般條款，必然對權益的保護不甚周全；雖然可由判例法的靈活性予以彌補，但英美法系固有的“遵循先例” 與“打破先例” 的矛盾，必然使侵權行為法缺乏穩定性與不可預見性。且從我國大陸法系的歷史傳統及法規的素質來看，英美侵權法的列舉式規範模式，不能為我所採，但是其將侵權行為加以列舉，便於司法操作的做法，可以為我所用。法國民法典為羅馬法的忠實繼承者，但在侵權行為的規定上，它拋棄了羅馬法的列舉式模式，而首創了侵權法的概括式規範模式。概括式規範模式中，一般條款的存在使侵權法具有一定的包容性，符合法典編撰的目的— 穩定性的要求；但是由於法國侵權法未將一般條款類型化，引起法官造法的普遍，而使法律具有不可預見性。另外，在法國，雖然出現了合同法向侵權法滲透的現象，但是通過分析，我們可以發現這些現象的產生並不是因為侵權法採取概括式規範模式，而是法國侵權法具體制度存在缺陷所致，所以，一般條款的存在，不僅使侵權法具有包容性，還使債法體系清晰。法國民法典的規範模式雖風行一時，但受到德國民法典的摒棄。德國民法典的編撰者認為，法國侵權法的抽象性規定，將本應由立法機關解決的問題，交由司法機關解決，只是掩飾了問題的困難性，不足所採；且由於歷史法學派、康德哲學、優越法益、罪刑法定主義等思想的影響，及基於德國法官作用的考慮，其開創了侵權法折中式規範模式的先河。德國侵權法折中式的優點就在於為法律提供了較為精確的構成要件，缺點就在於侵權法的保護範圍過於狹窄。為彌補這一缺陷，一方面德國司法部門創設了“營業權”、“一般人格權”等難以理解又易造成法律內部衝突的概念，另一方面，又不得不以誠實信用為基礎，創設了諸多制度，用合同法彌補侵權法的缺陷，造成法律體系混亂。故折中式規範模式不堪為我所採。各種規範模式均有利弊，我國侵權行為法究竟應何去何從？我們認為，“一般條款加類型化”的規範模式將是我國侵權法的最佳選擇：一般條款的存在可以使侵權法具有包容性，而對一般條款的類型化，則便於司法實踐。

The main mission of the tort law is to balance the clash of behavior freedom and the right protection, but in the realm of private law, giving a certain benefit with superior position, then means that another benefit yields. So, what norm mode is chosen by different country’s tort law, usually reflects the different value, such as economy, politics, culture, etc. Tort law of English and America based on the history tradition of the law origin、case law of writ system, etc., choose the stipulation by samples mode. The advantage of the stipulation by samples mode consists in the type of the law concrete, clear and definite; it is easy to operate judicially. But being in need of the general clause of tort law, the inevitable protection toward rights is not very thoughtful; although this weakness can be made up be the vivid case law, the common law’s traditional antimony-- “stare decisis doctrine” and “ break the precedent”, makes tort law unstable and unforeseen. And from our country’s historical tradition of the civil and judge’s quality to see, the stipulation by samples mode can’t be accepted by our country, but the method of making tort typical can be used. Civil code in France is the loyal successor of Roman law, but on the tort law, it abandoned the stipulation by samples mode of Roman law, and founded the generalized norm mode of tort law . The existence of general clause, makes the tort law contained, meets the request of the law-- stability. But the tort law of France did not make the general clause typical, which made judge make law widely. Moreover, in France, although such phenomenon appear that the law of contract penetrate the law of tort, through analysis, we can discover these phenomenon is not caused by the norm mode of the tort law, but by the defect of concrete tort system. So the existence of general clause, not only makes the tort law contained, but also makes the law of obligation system clear. The norm mode of the tort law in France became vogue of the time, but it is abandoned by German civil code. The German civil code edits think the abstract of the generalized norm mode hands over the questions that should be settled by legislative body to judicial organ, just covering up the difficulty of the Problems. The advantage of the compromise settlement mode consists in providing accurate constitutive requirements for law; the weakness is that its scope of Protection is too narrow. For making up this, the German judicial branch established such concepts as“trade right”, “general personal right”, which not only make people elusive, but make law conflict; on the other hand, it has to regard bona fide doctrine as foundation, established many system, used the law of contract to make up the weakness of tort law; these systems make law system confusion. Each norm mode of tort law has advantages and weakness; so which one can be chosen in our country? We think “the general clause adds typical tort” norm mode would be the best one: the general clause can make tort law contained, and through making the general clause typical, not only is easy to right protection, but to judicial practice.